• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

College Athlete Bill of Rights proposed in Congress

DeacMan said:
Exactly. So we (and by that I mean colleges generally and not per se Wake) end up doing away with how many other programs as a result. Hey, we've got a system that gives kids a free education. And handful of them actually generate the revenues needed to support the infrastructure that lets dozens of other kids play college sports. I won't pretend that isn't true. But if we're being really honest at schools like Wake there are literally no athletes at present who generate profitable revenues for those schools absent TV contracts that are based on the draw of teams at other schools - e.g. Clemson, Notre Dame and Florida State. So Wake's real value is to provide games on the schedule that set up Clemson to eventually compete in games that really matter. 9-1 Clemson vs. 10-0 Notre Dame exists only bc each team plays BC, Wake, etc. and avoid upsets along the way.

So Wake is going to pay players in some sports, run up costs that could threaten other sports in order to assure, at its most base level, guys like Trevor Lawrence and Dylon Moses are not exploited by a system that gives them a path to make millions of dollars bc there is no path for great HS football players to turn pro out of HS.

We have minor league soccer, hockey, baseball and even basketball. So kids have choices. But college football is exploiting guys like Dalvin Cook and Kirk Cousins so let's pay them as well as all the other kids who will never make it to the NFL (or merely get a cup of coffee there) the detriment of programs like Georgia gymnastics, MN wrestling and Wake women's soccer.

What problem are we really trying to solve? And how is this equitable at the end of the day to all college athletes?
Click to expand...

I agree. And the question of what problem are we trying to solve is the key. I certainly think things can be tweaked and improved, but I think some proposals could lead to a situation where college sports are lost, which would be terrible for a lot of kids. I see it as a similar move to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit - instead of paying players for their likeness, EA sports just stopping making the video games, and now O'Bannon is a hated man.

A few other thoughts on this subject:

- Not all economic models fit into capitalism. Medicine is a great example. I think college sports are another example. In fact, college sports are a great example of effective socialism - the wealth is spread out amongst all the student athletes.
- College athletics is not run like a business. If it were, there would only be two sports (football and men's basketball).
 
BillBrasky said:
While I understand your point, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Teague is successful because he's a professional athlete. What about the other 99% of college athletes (as the NCAA commercials famously tell us) that don't go pro in athletics. What about the kids that get their grades and test scores massaged enough to get into college for athletics? How many of them walk away with a substandard degree and no real vocational training or preparation? How do they turn out? And I don't mean one or two anecdotal stories, but as a collective? And when a university's priority is making money (and the marketing that goes along with sports) do we really educate our kids effectively?

it just seems that education should be the priority of our top universities, and for many of them (Wake included) it is not.
Click to expand...

Certainly the concerns your raise (massaged grades, substandard degree, etc) are legitimate and happen. I think where that most commonly happens is for the ultra-elite athletes that are heading to the pros. I think that can be alleviated to a large degree by allowing kids to go pro out of high school, which is now beginning to happen again in basketball.
 
Rafi said:
I agree. And the question of what problem are we trying to solve is the key. I certainly think things can be tweaked and improved, but I think some proposals could lead to a situation where college sports are lost, which would be terrible for a lot of kids. I see it as a similar move to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit - instead of paying players for their likeness, EA sports just stopping making the video games, and now O'Bannon is a hated man.

A few other thoughts on this subject:

- Not all economic models fit into capitalism. Medicine is a great example. I think college sports are another example. In fact, college sports are a great example of effective socialism - the wealth is spread out amongst all the student athletes.
- College athletics is not run like a business. If it were, there would only be two sports (football and men's basketball).
Click to expand...

It’s not “effective socialism.” Labor isn’t paid and the fruits of that labor are hoarded by administrators and execs. And even the “wealth” that’s “spread out” amongst all the student athletes is generated by disproportionately Black men and distributed to disproportionately white student-athletes.

Ed O’Bannon and EA aren’t the problem with the lawsuit. The problem is the NCAA could have just allowed players to get compensation from the games. EA was fine with it and it was worth it for them to do it. But the NCAA didn’t want to open things up for players.
 
Last edited:
BillBrasky said:
Y'all need to make peace with the fact that college sports are going to be gone in 10-20 years. Which is okay. Our universities and colleges need a massive overhaul, and uncoupling them from athletics isn't a bad start. Higher education shouldn't be about real estate accumulation and athletics. It should be about improving our next generation of adults.
Click to expand...

This.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a college athlete being able to negotiate a salary/benefits like any other job a college student could have. I don't see how you can possibly scale this across all leagues in D1 and all sports.

It is really only a few thousand (at most?) athletes and a few dozen schools that generate big revenue. That is a small percentage of the overall pool of college athletes and schools.
  • How would you pay a field hockey player or golfer, and should you at all when they bring in 0 revenue (actually takes revenue from football/mbb)?
  • How is the Texas starting quarterback paid vs. a swimmer from North Texas? Plus, you already have Title IX which is redistributing from (male) revenue sports to (female) non-revenue sports.
  • Generating royalties from your likeness will help that disparity, for video games and such. That seems like a better starting point to me vs. trying to determine how you pay out 50% of total revenue to all the athletes.
  • Would that create huge strife between football players and the rest, scrapping over that pool of money?
  • Would each sport have its own union to collectively bargain for their pool of athletes?
  • What if these groups got involved directly in negotiations with the media companies for that revenue vs. having the conferences/NCAA as the middle man?
  • How does the average student react knowing that athletes would be getting a ton of benefits and straight cash - potentially even for non-revenue sports - when they are getting straddled with $1000s in student debt at the same institution?


Maybe a full decoupling is best for the revenue sports. Athletes that are paid by the schools to represent the school, but actually have 0 connection to it beyond that sport, unless they choose to. So you could choose a scholarship + whatever potential benefits to attend class as well or just straight salary + benefits like a job and don't attend the school. Would the NFL/NBA be willing to fund a model of minor leagues, but it seems like they have 0 interest in that. NBA already has developmental leagues.
 
PhDeac said:
It’s not “effective socialism.” Labor isn’t paid and the fruits of that labor are hoarded by administrators and execs. And even the “wealth” that’s “spread out” amongst all the student athletes is generated by disproportionately Black men and distributed to disproportionately white student-athletes.

Ed O’Bannon and EA aren’t the problem with the lawsuit. The problem is the NCAA could have just allowed players to get compensation from the games. EA was fine with it and it was worth it for them to do it. But the NCAA didn’t want to open things up for players.
Click to expand...

I don't consider college sports to be labor, as it is a very different position from standard labor (no taxes paid, involves housing and food, it's tied to academic standards, etc.). I also think it is incorrect to suggest student athletes are not paid. Forbes estimates a college athletics scholarship is worth $150,000 (some estimates are up to $250,000 per year). This number has been debated, but the new G league development league suggests that not many chose the $125,000 salary over college (and that G league number is now up to $500,000).
 
There are no taxes paid because there's no income. Labor compensated with housing and food is still labor. "Academic standards" vary from institution to institution and perhaps even athlete to athlete.
 
BillBrasky said:
Y'all need to make peace with the fact that college sports are going to be gone in 10-20 years. Which is okay. Our universities and colleges need a massive overhaul, and uncoupling them from athletics isn't a bad start. Higher education shouldn't be about real estate accumulation and athletics. It should be about improving our next generation of adults.
Click to expand...

I don't have a thorough study to point to, but a lot of colleges and universities have lost this vision entirely...not just for sports but across all academics. I've sat through far to many faculty meetings over the years where deans and department heads are trying to devise ways to increase revenues by offering online certificate programs, or figuring out how to get a course listed as a core science requirement, instead of figuring out what skills students need to be successful or how to educate to improve lives and societies. At some point in the last 25 years (probably longer) colleges and universities shifted from the core purpose of educating and benefiting society to balancing budgets and being run like a business.
 
Rafi said:
I don't consider college sports to be labor, as it is a very different position from standard labor (no taxes paid, involves housing and food, it's tied to academic standards, etc.). I also think it is incorrect to suggest student athletes are not paid. Forbes estimates a college athletics scholarship is worth $150,000 (some estimates are up to $250,000 per year). This number has been debated, but the new G league development league suggests that not many chose the $125,000 salary over college (and that G league number is now up to $500,000).
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Think is more akin to a military model. You trade benefits that no-one else receives (Education, Housing, Food, etc) for your personal freedom for a per-determined amount of time of the contract. Obviously, the risk, demands and penalties are much different in a military role vs. college athlete, but there are some similarities e.g., your physical health. Once that contract/scholarship is up, you can enter the larger workforce.
 
birdman said:
I don't have a thorough study to point to, but a lot of colleges and universities have lost this vision entirely...not just for sports but across all academics. I've sat through far to many faculty meetings over the years where deans and department heads are trying to devise ways to increase revenues by offering online certificate programs, or figuring out how to get a course listed as a core science requirement, instead of figuring out what skills students need to be successful or how to educate to improve lives and societies. At some point in the last 25 years (probably longer) colleges and universities shifted from the core purpose of educating and benefiting society to balancing budgets and being run like a business.
Click to expand...


Yep. Universities are real estate and venture capital companies operating under the veil of education.
 
Remember the NCAA has all levels of athletes. Only a very small fraction have careers as professional athletes.

Most are like one guy who, upon signing to play football, said, "I'm getting a free education. I'll be the first petson in my family to go to college."

This is addressing issues that mostly affect a few hundred "pre professional" out of thousands of college athletes. Most college athletes "turn pro" in something other than sports. Teaching, preaching, business, engineering...

The desire to make college education much more of a career training operation is a different discussion from the place of athletics in higher education. In essence, it would do away with much of the Wake Forest "liberal education." There would be many more "North Ave. Trade Schools."
 
I'll just throw this out there that, if we treat athletic income like we do graduate assistantships, there is precedent for paying students in different programs different amounts. English department TAs at a lot of universities make far less than Bio department TAs at a lot of schools. Some departments even pay different students in the same program different amounts, depending on their research and the source of funds.
 
birdman said:
I'll just throw this out there that, if we treat athletic income like we do graduate assistantships, there is precedent for paying students in different programs different amounts. English department TAs at a lot of universities make far less than Bio department TAs at a lot of schools. Some departments even pay different students in the same program different amounts, depending on their research and the source of funds.
Click to expand...

And that's a good model to use for paying athletes.
 
PhDeac said:
There are no taxes paid because there's no income. Labor compensated with housing and food is still labor. "Academic standards" vary from institution to institution and perhaps even athlete to athlete.
Click to expand...

Anything compensated for labor is income. I could pay you in peanuts to paint my house if that's how you wanted to be paid. The IRS would ask you to value the peanuts and tax you on that value absent a exemption or deduction granted under their rules.

And income is never dependent on labor. If I hand you $10K worth of peanuts for nothing that is still income absent some exemption or rule saying you need not claim it as income.

The IRS has rules on why scholarships are tax free. Absent this rule your scholarship would not be tax free. And reading the rule, not everything tied to a scholarship is always tax free anyway.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421#:~:text=Tax-Free,receive may be tax-free.
 
Last edited:
Another aspect of this topic that will be interesting to see play out over the next few years will be the naming-image-likeness (NIL) compensation. A lot of the message board discussion has been, "a car dealership will pay Trevor Lawrence to go to college." In reality, the much bigger financial prospects will be athletes making money from social media. And I think many may be surprised to see who this benefits the most. The college athlete with the most instagram followers is Katelyn Ohashi (UCLA gymnast) - 1 million followers. There is an Oregon women's softball player with 250,000 followers. They could potentially make more than $1000 per post, well over $100,000 per year.
 
Definitely. And I'm pretty sure the current rules prevent athletes from making money from social media before they even enroll. A Zion Williamson or definitely a Kwe Parker should be able to make money off their own dunk videos. There are plenty of non-athletes and athletes who already have followers before they step on campus.

But car dealerships will figure out how to pay football players if that's acceptable for the university.
 
Rafi said:
Another aspect of this topic that will be interesting to see play out over the next few years will be the naming-image-likeness (NIL) compensation. A lot of the message board discussion has been, "a car dealership will pay Trevor Lawrence to go to college." In reality, the much bigger financial prospects will be athletes making money from social media. And I think many may be surprised to see who this benefits the most. The college athlete with the most instagram followers is Katelyn Ohashi (UCLA gymnast) - 1 million followers. There is an Oregon women's softball player with 250,000 followers. They could potentially make more than $1000 per post, well over $100,000 per year.
Click to expand...

Are we going to see salary caps imposed by the NCAA or individual conferences? Competitive balance has to be a factor in the equation. Will the cases pending in the Supreme Court mean that caps are illegal? Stay tuned.
 
I cannot believe someone would buy a car because an 18 year old who can throw a football told them to. But it’s already happening in so many other contexts and that’s the world we inhabit. The way people are influenced is a strange phenomenon.
 
PhDeac said:
Definitely. And I'm pretty sure the current rules prevent athletes from making money from social media before they even enroll. A Zion Williamson or definitely a Kwe Parker should be able to make money off their own dunk videos. There are plenty of non-athletes and athletes who already have followers before they step on campus.

But car dealerships will figure out how to pay football players if that's acceptable for the university.
Click to expand...

Yes, as of now they can’t make NIL money before they enroll. But the new NIL options will likely take effect this spring/summer.

Also, at a rate of $1000 per post, PhDeac would have made $117,000,000 on this website.
 
DeacDaddy said:
I cannot believe someone would buy a car because an 18 year old who can throw a football told them to. But it’s already happening in so many other contexts and that’s the world we inhabit. The way people are influenced is a strange phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I like that CP3 hasn't gotten too big to do ads for a W-S area business or two. Does it make me more likely to go there? Absolutely not.
 
The world is not fair or equitable. The simple solution is to rescind all restrictions on income. That income incurs tax obligations. Each individual is given the opportunity to decide what is in their best interest. If EA sports wants to compensate everyone on the team for NIL let them. If Flow Motors wants to pay members of the tennis team for a service rendered let him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top